This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Donald Trump Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Television: Episode coverage / Reality This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force. This article is supported by the Reality television task force.

First, I'm not sure that these all fall under "fair use". Second, I do not think we should have two candidates and not the other sixteen. That's why I commented out (not deleted, I was being nice) the pics. Any opinions? [[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>SpeakToMe<<]] 02:26, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

OK, MattTM, I think the group "thumbnails" work much better. Thanks! [[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>SpeakToMe<<]] 02:30, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

I hear you. Actually those photos are available at NBC's public relations site for journalists, so they are freely available to the media. As for only two pictures, I agree. They should all be there and I see that you (or someone, I haven't checked to see who) changed it to include all 18.

Yep, I put in the mosaic (no pun intended) image of all of the candidates. The individual photographs are nice, but are probably better suited for the individual candidate pages whenever we get their last names. - MattTM 02:35, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

"Mosaic", that's the word I wanted! I settled for thumbnails when my brain wouldn't function.

BTW, Inturnaround, I had typed out the episode one synopsis. When I hit Save, I had an edit conflict with you. Since yours was as good as (perhaps better than) mine, I did not overwrite. [[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>SpeakToMe<<]] 02:47, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, all, I'm still getting the hang of all of this. I'm sorry about the edit conflict, Nelson. Thanks for thinking my words were up to par, though. Do you want to take the lead on this page this season? Inturnaround 03:05, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Neither of had a way of knowing what the other was doing. I'm not sure that I want to accept responsibility. If I notice that it hasn't been updated by the Friday after airing, I will add the info. (the NBC website should be updated by then). I can't promise I won't get antsy and do something on Thursday, though.

At any rate, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you have as much fun as I do. [[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>SpeakToMe<<]] 03:12, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

It seems that certain Wikipedia Contributors feel that Apprentice candidates are not notable. Two articles on them have been listed on Votes for Deletion (VfD). I have just created stubs for the rest and fear that they will befall the same fate. Please vote Keep, for each listed below. List will be expanded if and when they are added to VfD. Thank you.

• Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Stacy_Rotne
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Raj Bhakta

[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 05:52, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the deletions as well. Now that we have articles on all of the Apprentice 2 candidates, I'd like to begin expanding them, but I'm unsure of their fate. One thing we should do is add external links to each page, with links to their NBC.com profile, their official website (which many, if not all, of them have), and any important interviews they have done. Then we need to start compiling their background and show information from the numerous sources. That should make them worthy enough to stay. - MattTM 07:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

We are jumping the gun here. I believe we should wait until TA2 is over *before* doing articles on contestants. Why? Everyone, except for Rob and Bradford, is still on the show and we (as Wikipedians) do not know what they will do from one week to the next. We also do not know if they will be anyone after their firing. Case in point: compare David (first person fired last seaon) with Omarosa or some of the others who have made names for themselves since the last season. - iHoshie 08:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, some loser has now listed all of our contestant pages. I won;t even bother to list them all. Raj has been deleted. I will recreate. If they delete again, I'll keep them busy.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 17:25, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Nricardo, you're being anti-social by Wikipedia standards. If the pages are deleted, you should learn to respect that rather than go against the will of the decisionmaking bodies. By all means, vote your say, but when the decision is made, it's made. There are other places you could keep this information -- on your own wiki, or on personal webpages. --Improv 18:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Improv. What I suggest is to make bios on this page. Most of the contestants will be truly non-notable, especially the ones that are already gone. The winner might deserve his or her own entry eventually, and if some of the other individuals end up doing something otherwise notable, I would feel comfortable with having entries for them as well. But unilaterally going against a VfD decision is a road no one wants you to go down. Plutor 19:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Nelson, recreating a page that has been deleted according to consensus is likely to be considered as vandalism (especially given your past history of vandalism) and could well see you blocked from editing. Nobody is suggesting that this info may not be in the Wikipedia, but the emerging consensus is that is should be on this page (or, equally good, on The Apprentice 2 Candidates), not spread out over one article per contestant. —Stormie 01:04, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • One edit does not a "history of vandalism" make. Besides, I was making the article more accurate, especially for non-Americans who might not be familiar with our political system. :-) [[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 17:58, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think at this point, I need to concede defeat, since so many people seem to be anti-Apprentice, likely because you don't like reality shows (this one is different from the other crap out there) or you seem to think that if you haven't heard of something, it's not notable (especially harsh for you Brits who have voted). The bios will appear at The Apprentice 2 Candidates. Please do not change the title to "List of" or whatever. The list is in this article. The Apprentice 2 Candidates contains info. that goes beyond a list. Thanks.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 19:46, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Please assume good faith. I voted against individual articles for the contestants simply because I do not think their ephemeral fame makes them sufficiently notable for encyclopedia articles. It has nothing to do with whether or not I like reality TV shows. I would like to think that my fellow editors also voted with similar impartiality. (full disclosure: I actually work for the television network that broadcasts The Apprentice in my country) —Stormie 01:04, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've given up on good faith. I've seen too many egos on Wikipedia. There are too many people who have no power in the real world, so they use Wikipedia as their pissing ground. Many of the items on VfD are there based purely on POV. Personally, I think we should err on the side of inclusiveness. Some people prefer to destroy rather than create. Some have nothing better to do than vote on VfD. I'm sure some of them did not even have the courtesy to even look at the pages they;ve voted on.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 02:30, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • How are you judging that? Is it just that, as a fan of the show, you're disappointed to find that people who arn't fans don't feel that it's different from other reality tv, or that every contestant on it is somehow notable because they've been interviewed? It seems to a lot of people, especially given your recent nomination of a mathematician who has contributed significantly to science, for deletion, and its suspicious targeting because of its importance to someone who voted against your proposals, that you might be a prime example of an ego on Wikipedia. Of course, there are indeed others, but I would hardly say that there's a conspiracy against your favourite show. There's just a consensus, of which I happen to be a part, that it's somewhat less notable than a long-running soap-opera, and that while it certainly merits an entry in Wikipedia, its contestants are not sufficiently notable, barring other distinction, to so merit one. Personally, I think that even the biography page is somewhat questionable, but it is less clear to me that it should be deleted than the individual pages, so I would not nominate it for deletion (and am not sure if I would abstain or vote for its deletion if someone else were to). I also find it questionable how fans of other series, e.g. Star Wars, decide to include every little detail of the target of their fandom on Wikipedia -- while Star Wars is quite notable, and it might merit a more through treatment than some other fiction, taking it to the level it is now is quite unencyclopedic, and were it to be put to a vote, I would vote for deletion of most of that fancruft too. I can't speak for the other people who vote against the Apprentice individual contestant pages, but I don't have anything particular against you, the Apprentice (I've watched a few episodes while visiting someone with cable, and it wasn't bad), or anything like that. I simply don't think the pages put up for VfD were notable, as part of broader principles I have on what makes something suitable for an encyclopedia. --Improv 15:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • even the biography page is somewhat questionable - Oh, come on, why can't you just let it go? It is not questionable. Including this in the main article would make it too long, once we have the episode summaries and the bios all fleshed out. Two pages on a season of a highly rated and talked about show is not overkill (a page on every Ork in Middle Earth, now that's a bit much). (Oh and I never claimed not to have an ego.) As I said on your talk page and I'll reiterate here for all, Wikipedia is different from other encyclopedias. I feel that including popular culture in addition to "serious" topics will greatly increase WP's visibility. Let's not be shortsighted. Wouldn't it be great when men and women (and boys and girls and that really smart ape in the lab) decide they want to know more about one of the contestants and they Google their name, they discover a great resource called Wikipedia?[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 17:58, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure if, by saying let it go, you mean that we should permit it to exist despite lack of adequate justification, or if you're suggesting I give up on a past insult. Neither parsing of the phrase seems to really fit what I imagine you're saying, so I don't understand what you mean there. I am not suggesting including it in the main article -- I am suggesting that it might not be appropriate on Wikipedia AT ALL. Wikipedia is not the world wide web -- presumably people who want such information can go to imdb or some fansite. I just don't think contestants on a gameshow are notable, whether the show has a gimmick of interviewing them and making them seem important or not. Having them on seperate pages seems, to me to be ridiculous, having them on a list page (or something like what you've created) seems iffy but not clearly inappropriate. Regarding ego, you should keep yours off of Wikipedia (as much as possible, as with everyone else). This popular culture is not popular enough to merit being here. --Improv 19:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • This popular culture is not popular enough to merit being here = POV.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 19:37, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
            • Are you serious? Do you seriously suggest that a discussion on notability is subject to NPOV/POV as defined by Wikipedia? I suggest you go read the description of NPOV again. It's about the content of articles, not on other value judgements. Notability is very clearly outside of its intended scope, and is in fact a leading criterion for VfD. --Improv 21:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
              • I am serious and I do not appreciate your condescension. (I don't know about you, but I like having the last word. If you're the same, I guess we'll be here a while. At least that'll keep me from creating nonnotable stubs.)[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 22:03, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
• As a 'Brit' who voted in favour of deleting these articles I'd like to say that I didn't do so because I hadn't heard of them (I haven't heard of many thousands of people who deserve a Wikipedia entry), I did so because like the vast majority of TV 'personalities' they are nobodies who are worthy of no more attention in an encyclopaedia than we are ourselves (although we are probably far more use to society in the long run). Just because someone gets on TV does not mean that they are suddenly notable - within a few months most will be forgotten never to be heard of again. Added to the fact that the quotes from the show's publicity made the entries sound like fansites. -- Necrothesp 15:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, so what more remains to be said on this subject?[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 01:05, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

• All I'm saying is that it's not accepted practice to empty an entire talk page because the matter is closed. If it's closed, we can just say it's closed, leave it there, and ignore it. At the very least, it'd be better to talk to the people involved in the conversation and see if they're ok with those portions being moved to a subpage, link to that subpage, and leave it live in that way. It's very surprising when people come back to check on a conversation and see it gone and closed to comment. Remember too that neither the article nor the discussion belong to you, me, or any particular other person -- it belongs to the community. People also reference what they (and other people) say to show a continuity in their actions. For example, people can look back at all my contributions to decide (hint hint) if I have a vendetta against them or if what I do is part of a larger way of looking at Wikipedia issues. For the record, Nricardo, I don't have malice towards you, nor The Apprentice. I don't have cable, and so I don't watch TV, but I found the show kind of amusing, which isn't that common for me. I do my best to be fair in all conflicts on Wikipedia, and I hope that my record shows that. I don't like having it wiped out or hidden, and probably neither do the other people who have contributed. --Improv 01:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • OK, now I've gone from what I thought was a useful member of the Wikipedia community to being a troll. I guess my days of any productivity here are over. I can either leave or run around like an angry madman.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 01:38, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think you're a troll. I do think you might have trouble containing your passion for the topic, and it gets in the way of objectivity. I do feel like your statement about finding a sex buddy felt like an attempt to be offensive, but I'm a very difficult person to offend, and will try not to take it too seriously. Perhaps you're not fully acquainted to the customs of Wikipedia, but I believe you can be a valuable contributor to the community! We all have areas to work on, and there's no shame in growing as an individual. It's something I try to do continually in life. --Improv 02:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I apologize again. Stating that I am looking for a rent boy and stating that you are cute are two completey unrelated topics. You are obviously not a rent boy.
        
        I've been with Wikipedia for some time (check my contributions; I'm no newbie), enough time to know that sometime, rather than collaborate, some people prefer to push aside anyone and anything they do not consider important (this is POV, and don't disagree here again, please). It was much worse when I tried to contribut to pt.wikipedia.org, because there seems to be one especailly powerful ego there, whereas, the power is more diluted on en.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 02:33, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

The images on the Raj Bhakta and Stacy Rotne (needs to be moved to Stacy Rotner if it survives VfD [1]) articles are nice, but there's been some concern over the copyright status (though they seem to be NBC promotional shots, and should be fair use), and we also only have 2 of 18 so far. I found a few more similar photos here. Should we use these large promotional shots under fair use, or find other images to use? Another option would be the images in the NBC candidate bios, but they are considerably smaller. It would be nice to get images in all 18 candidate articles. - MattTM 07:10, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

They're all at nbcmv.com , the press site for NBC Universal. Actually, these are just the "Preview" size images, being a member of the entertainment press, I could have retrieved and uploaded the full size pics, a couple of MB large. Upload more photos, I don't have the time right off, and this was meant only as a start. -- user:zanimum

Thanks. These photos are great. - MattTM 23:47, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

((spoiler)) Please let me know how you feel about replacing the list with the following table. Same data; perhaps better presentation. Thanks. (Also, I think the table may look more balanced if we wikify repeated hometowns. Please let me know.)

[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo  >>Talk<<]] 03:21, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me. I can say that I'll largely be satisfied with any organization that keeps all the candicates together, be it in list format or table format, but this does look rather nice and neat. --Improv 03:43, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I dig it. Looks neat and I'd say you should pop it in. Inturnaround 04:12, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• It looks good. I say we use it. - MattTM 05:21, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Looks good. Maybe less border, and a pastel coloured background of some sort for the names, but otherwise it works perfectly. Will we also have this for the first season, I presume? -- user:zanimum
  • Great! I'll move it to the article. If someone wishes to pretty up, please go ahead. My table skills are not the best. I'll put season 1 on my to-do list.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 16:00, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Expand the info if you can on the recruiting episode and its real name. I'm surprised you didn't get the info about it sooner. Also, do you think it is possible we can get the video footage of the TV ads they made?- B-101 15:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you think it's possible to get their police TV ads?- B-101 22:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It might be possible. I still have the episode on my TiVo, but I don't currently have a way to extract the videos. If you found the episode for download somewhere, you could take the commercials from that and upload them here. - MattTM | talk 01:45, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

In case you don't know, if you miss the latest episodes, CNBC (cable channel 22) has the latest rerun on Friday at 8 and 11 PM and the next Tuesday at 8 and 11. I really don't want to be the guy who puts in the results of the last episode; my life is already busy enough.- B-101 00:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just one little nitpick. Every cable system is different. Not everyone is going to have CNBC on 22. Nelson Ricardo 02:25, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Good point. This is if you live in the Rochester, New York area.- B-101 12:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think we should put in what the winning team got, along with the prizes from the first season.- B-101 02:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because Kelly Perdew is reportedly doing well for The Trump Organization, Perdew deserves an article of his own. I had to update the links so that you will see the separate page for Perdew, I think select candidates (like Kendra and Tana of Season 3) deserved their own articles. Here is the article.

Does anyone know when (or if) the second season will be coming out on DVD? Thanks. Mr. Turcotte^talk 15:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute to the relevant discussion here, as this discussion relates to this article. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 15:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In week 4, under the Dramatic Tension heading, despite no mention or coverage by the episode or later episodes in the season, someone here has written that Jennifer and Stacey secretly decided not to mention the over-critical Jewish ladies brawl in the boardroom: "though they later discussed the matter privately and agreed to not mention it in the Boadroom.", Where is this information coming from? Does someone here have contact with film crew or production team? Never the less, unless you can cite this conspiracy, it will be removed. Thanks --93.97.181.187 (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all! Just here to get everyones opinion about the new table layout for normal Apprentice. So far I have only edited seasons 1 and 2 fearing they will be changed back anyway. Please state your opinions and let me know thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.59.136 (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 33 external links on The Apprentice (U.S. season 2). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20040911075817/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/nbc/The_Apprentice_2/episode_recap/one.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20051124144947/http%3A//apprentice.tv.yahoo.com%3A80/02/theshow/recap/episode1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20040919001331/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/nbc/The_Apprentice_2/episode_recap/two.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20051124145011/http%3A//apprentice.tv.yahoo.com%3A80/02/theshow/recap/episode2.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20040925121127/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/nbc/The_Apprentice_2/episode_recap/three.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20050428202738/http%3A//apprentice.tv.yahoo.com%3A80/02/theshow/recap/episode3.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20041012034125/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/nbc/The_Apprentice_2/episode_recap/four.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20051124145059/http%3A//apprentice.tv.yahoo.com%3A80/02/theshow/recap/episode4.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20041018010535/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/nbc/The_Apprentice_2/episode_recap/five.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20051124145123/http%3A//apprentice.tv.yahoo.com%3A80/02/theshow/recap/episode5.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20041019023919/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/nbc/The_Apprentice_2/episode_recap/six.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20051124145147/http%3A//apprentice.tv.yahoo.com%3A80/02/theshow/recap/episode6.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20041023071920/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/nbc/The_Apprentice_2/episode_recap/seven.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20051124145211/http%3A//apprentice.tv.yahoo.com%3A80/02/theshow/recap/episode7.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20041030122816/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/nbc/The_Apprentice_2/episode_recap/eight.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20051113004858/http%3A//apprentice.tv.yahoo.com%3A80/02/theshow/recap/episode8.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20041108021724/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/nbc/The_Apprentice_2/episode_recap/nine.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20051124145235/http%3A//apprentice.tv.yahoo.com%3A80/02/theshow/recap/episode9.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20041120120422/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/nbc/The_Apprentice_2/episode_recap/ten.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20051124150016/http%3A//apprentice.tv.yahoo.com%3A80/02/theshow/recap/episode10.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20041120122452/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/nbc/The_Apprentice_2/episode_recap/eleven.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20051024115659/http%3A//apprentice.tv.yahoo.com%3A80/02/theshow/recap/episode11.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20041128000028/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/nbc/The_Apprentice_2/episode_recap/twelve.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20051124150040/http%3A//apprentice.tv.yahoo.com%3A80/02/theshow/recap/episode12.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20041207070838/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/nbc/The_Apprentice_2/episode_recap/thirteen.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20051124150104/http%3A//apprentice.tv.yahoo.com%3A80/02/theshow/recap/episode13.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20041211153849/http%3A//nbc.com%3A80/nbc/The_Apprentice_2/episode_recap/fourteen.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20050508235058/http%3A//apprentice.tv.yahoo.com%3A80/02/theshow/recap/episode14.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20041217154001/http%3A//www.nbc.com%3A80/nbc/The_Apprentice_2/episode_recap/fifteen.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20050524004937/http%3A//apprentice.tv.yahoo.com%3A80/02/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013194536/http://mariaboren.com/ to http://www.mariaboren.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070425215338/http://www.jennifercrisafulli.com/ to http://www.jennifercrisafulli.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928230349/http://www.stacyrotner.com/ to http://www.stacyrotner.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]